Atheistic dismissiveness?

At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.

At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.

That would be the case if we were discussing Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. all of which I think everyone on here can agree is completely fucktarded. All of these demand from their followers "belief belief belief", without any philosophical reasoning behind it. Blind compliance.

Your objection is irrelevant. I said: in the proper sense of the word. Did you actually read my last answer? It explains why that should be the standard, default, normal sense.

Yes, I read your answer. Which is itself a debatable opinion. You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way. The word science can be used to mean other things. Words can have multiple meanings. The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided. The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to. You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.

Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?

Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?

Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.

That would be the case if we were discussing Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. all of which I think everyone on here can agree is completely fucktarded. All of these demand from their followers "belief belief belief", without any philosophical reasoning behind it. Blind compliance.

Meh, you're all just looking to rationalize the need to believe in something. Because it's all based on doublespeak and philosophy doesn't mean it is fundamentally any different at all in the end. The brain forces the conscious mind into this trap.

Something might be wrong with me to have that area of my brain completely disconnected from my consciousness. Only on rare occasions, and never once since I was older than 18 have I ever believed in anything at all. Even as a child in church, it was just never "there". I used to be so horrified and I had no idea why when all the people in the room, my mother included, would be filled with the holy spirit etc during song, holding their hands in the air like a bunch of savages throwing bones.

If some sort of higher life exists beyond our ability to detect yet, it isn't a God. It's an alien. Twisting the word "God" to to mean "the universe" or "dark matter entity we can't detect" is just a way to give in to believing in something.

Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?

Amazing! Never thought of it that way! Or what if our galaxy is actually on the collar of a kittycat named Orion or whatever. So basically, the storyline to Men in Black had it down pat. Fascinating shit today guys, really.

Yes, I read your answer. Which is itself a debatable opinion. You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way. The word science can be used to mean other things. Words can have multiple meanings. The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided. The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to. You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.

Thanks!What one deems trustworthy essentially depends on the way one understands the word "science". If Wolfgang says that evolutionism were science, then he must remember that this so-called science is only opinion and therefore not trustworthy. If Wolfgang had said that evolutionism is only an opinion and therefore not more trustworthy than a religous relevation, this would not be an issue. But as you can see yourself, he stated the contrary.

Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one. I suggest that this is a false dilemma.Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.

Yes, I read your answer. Which is itself a debatable opinion. You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way. The word science can be used to mean other things. Words can have multiple meanings. The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided. The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to. You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.

Thanks!What one deems trustworthy essentially depends on the way one understands the word "science". If Wolfgang says that evolutionism were science, then he must remember that this so-called science is only opinion and therefore not trustworthy. If Wolfgang had said that evolutionism is only an opinion and therefore not more trustworthy than a religous relevation, this would not be an issue. But as you can see yourself, he stated the contrary.

Babbleism Incarnate. Where I come from you need no disclaimer that science doesn't have it all figured out yet. That is implied. You're using semantics to distort the issue. I've purposely avoided the hairsplitting over my initial comments for that reason.

Science doesn't know everything by a long shot. But it makes sense. It is supported by data and has facts that can be proven. Nothing else is supported by data. I'm gonna keep it simple here and just stick with what has been proven to work. Even if we don't know everything. It is absurd to assume we can't look to scientific theory simply because it is incomplete. We'd never be able to accept anything then if complete knowledge of the true nature of everything is our acceptance standard. You'll say that that isn't what you're saying, but it really is.

You are a primate and you exist only because chemicals randomly formed DNA in the primordial soup. I am sorry if this makes your life boring.

I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where *edit* forgot to finish this sentence OH WELL

Quote

Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever. Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God. Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.

I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where

Quote

Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever. Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God. Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.